Indiscriminate deletion of unsourced material to "enforce [[WP:V]]" is a
popular way to game the system.
I agree about systemic bias caused by requiring that sources be in English
(or whatever language the Wikipedia is in).
2007/8/10, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>om>:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 10/08/07, michael west
<michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On the English Wikipedia the simple answer would be to delete the
unsourced
> section and then move the "crazy"
text to the talk page. If text was
really
> crazy delete it and forget. If text might be
true tag with a mention
that it
needs
sources (inline or <!--hidden-->
I was rather asking about whether the oft-encountered attitude of
"this author represents a side-taking-group which is "wrong" to quote
in context of this article and so should not be included" is
justifiable by the Five Pillars of Gods?
Or is it a disguised WP:OR involved to block the "unpleasant" kind of
info, like I deem it to be?
I think it is justifiable, yes. The alternative would be to give every
fringe theory 'equal representation' on Wikipedia. The only
questionable thing in my opinion is to use 'no original research' as
the argument. To me it's more an issue of 'balancing within the
article' - various sub-subjects should not get unproportional
attention in an article, and for these theories ANY attention might be
unproportionally much.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l